Can The Implicit Association Test Measure Automatic Judgment? The Validation Continues (Vol 16, Pg 415, 2021)

PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE(2021)

引用 31|浏览5
暂无评分
摘要
In this commentary, we welcome Schimmack's reanalysis of Bar-Anan and Vianello's multitrait multimethod (MTMM) data set, and we highlight some limitations of both the original and the secondary analyses. We note that when testing the fit of a confirmatory model to a data set, theoretical justifications for the choices of the measures to include in the model and how to construct the model improve the informational value of the results. We show that making different, theory-driven specification choices leads to different results and conclusions than those reported by Schimmack (this issue, p. diamond diamond diamond ). Therefore, Schimmack's reanalyses of our data are insufficient to cast doubt on the Implicit Association Test (IAT) as a measure of automatic judgment. We note other reasons why the validation of the IAT is still incomplete but conclude that, currently, the IAT is the best available candidate for measuring automatic judgment at the person level.
更多
查看译文
关键词
Implicit Association Test, IAT, validity, multitrait multimethod design, structural equation models
AI 理解论文
溯源树
样例
生成溯源树,研究论文发展脉络
Chat Paper
正在生成论文摘要